docs: add ctags-faq(7) #2855
docs: add ctags-faq(7) #2855
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2855 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 86.99% 86.99%
=======================================
Files 194 194
Lines 44133 44133
=======================================
Hits 38395 38395
Misses 5738 5738 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
fails on centos_make.
|
|
Thank you very much. Could you rebase the latest commit of the |
docs/man/ctags-faq.7.rst
Outdated
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ||
|
|
||
| Either by setting the environment variable ``CTAGS`` to your custom | ||
| options, or putting them into a ``.ctags`` file in your home directory. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
u-ctags doesn't read ~/.ctags. Instead u-ctags reads ~/.ctags.d/anyname.ctags.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I had to care of this.
Fixed.
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ||
|
|
||
| Because, by default, ctags only generates tags for the separate identifiers | ||
| found in the source files. If you specify the ``--extra=+q`` option, then |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
--extras=+q instead of --extra=+q in u-ctags.
| #1421: feature: clean up stale tags when appending (`-a`) | ||
| #2356: can't pre-process the macro but it works with Exuberant Ctags 5.8 | ||
| #2540: C/C++：conditional compilation like #ifdef will cause parse errror | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would like you to add an item about ~/.ctags at the top.
e.g.
What is the difference between Universal Ctags and Exuberant Ctags?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Universal Ctags is an unofficial fork of Exuberant Ctags.
The differences are summarized in ctags-incompatibilities(7) man page.
The most notable one is Universal Ctags doesn't read `.ctags` file under your home directory.
Instead, it reads `*.ctags` under `~/.ctags.d` directory.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Referencing to ctags-incompatibilities(7) is a very good idea.
fixed.
- no contents change - use ".. contents::" directive
The following sections are deleted. - Why do you call it "Exuberant Ctags"? - Why doesn't my editor work with these tag files? - Why doesn't XEmacs' Speedbar module work with Exuberant Ctags? - Why doesn't Xemacs correctly locate the tag in the source file? - Why doesn't NEdit correctly locate the tag in the source file? - What is "Vim"? - How do I get regex support for Win32?
- fix markup - replace "Exuberant" with "Universal" - fix spelling mistakes
- new sections: - Does Universal Ctags support Unicode file names? - Why does zsh cause "zsh: no matches found" error? - add TODO comment for universal-ctags#1421, universal-ctags#2356, and universal-ctags#2540
- add "What is the difference between Universal Ctags and Exuberant Ctags?" - change from ~/.ctags to ~/.ctags.d/*.ctags - chnage from --extras to --extra
|
I applied all of your suggestions.
The error is gone. Thanks. |
|
Thank you very much. |
| code page. If you still want to use Unicode file names on them, use Cygwin or | ||
| MSYS2 version of Universal Ctags as a workaround. | ||
|
|
||
| Why does zsh cause "zsh: no matches found" error? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I found tcsh made the similar warning, too.
[jet@living]~/var/ctags-new% tcsh
[jet@living ctags-new]$ echo --foo=fnmatch/*
echo: No match.
[jet@living ctags-new]$ ls --*
ls: No match.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting! This may be the root cause of the "feature" of zsh.
echo: No match.
ls: No match.
Filename expansion is a job of a shell. (On MS-DOS it is a job of each command.)
Either echo nor ls caused the error. "tcsh: No match" like on zsh is a correct error message.
I thought about adding a comment that tcsh causes similar error, but I did not.
It is because I think we should not take care of csh. cf. Csh Programming Considered Harmful
old-docs/FAQ-a) #1421, can't pre-process the macro but it works with Exuberant Ctags 5.8 #2356, and C/C++：conditional compilation like #ifdef will cause parse errror #2540